from the bah humbug desk of joschka fischer: BAH HUMBUG!!! ...who needs embryonic stem cells anyway. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19641 Now how aboutMessage 1 of 72 , Jul 24, 2006View Sourcefrom the "bah humbug" desk of joschka fischer:
...who needs embryonic stem cells anyway.
Now how about this boner...I'll require you to look it
Who needs just stem cells?
...start looking into astrocytes, please!
of all people a Lawyer who showed me how to get
admitted to Medical School when you're over 45
discovered this one.
--- "D.J. Cline" <djcline01@...> a écrit :
> Hello Larry!___________________________________________________________________________
> I said conservative not Republican.
> They need not be synonymous.
> I like creating jobs and helping people too.
> Last year I lost a dear friend.
> I should note that she was a fiscal and social
> She worked in medical research and understood the
> potential and
> limitations of stem cell research.
> She felt that God gave her the ability to reason, to
> do research.
> She died knowing the future could not come fast
> enough for her.
> It was her wish that others work toward the cure
> that eluded her.
> She told me that if I could not reach those who
> hated us with reason
> that I could touch them with laughter.
> Have you contacted your local party organizers?
> Will you speak out for stem cell research?
> Are you on a committee to change the platform?
> Of course their should be research guidelines.
> Loved my friend. You would have liked her.
> P.S. Any relation to the Sean Patrick Maloney
> running for Attorney
> General in New York?
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Larry Maloney wrote:
> > Well, I'm a Republican, and I don't agree with a
> > on Stem cells. (Technically, I'm fiscally
> > concervative, and socially liberal (or socially
> > ambivialant))
> > I think we should have SOME restrictions on how
> > are harvested. We need some ethical guidelines.
> > This legislation was created to prevent the
> > intentional creation of human embryos for the
> > of harvesting stem cells.
> > However, what has happened, is that couples have
> > embryos stored for future use, and many of these
> > embryos aren't used, and eventually are thrown out
> > medical waste.
> > IF an embryo is going to be thrown away, THEN it
> > as well be utilized. (Don't throw the baby out
> > the bath water! (ouch, bad pun)
> > Besides, it's not like we need millions of stem
> > lines. We just need a few hundred. Korea, and
> > have about 300 each.
> > In fact, our researchers here are TRYING to get
> > cell lines from China.
> > So, don't think that all "Conservatives" are
> > "anti-stem cell". I'm not in that category.
> > Cmon now, show me some love.... :)
> > Larry
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
Découvrez un nouveau moyen de poser toutes vos questions quelque soit le sujet !
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses pour partager vos connaissances, vos opinions et vos expériences.
In a message dated 8/20/2006 10:45:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:Message 72 of 72 , Aug 21, 2006View SourceIn a message dated 8/20/2006 10:45:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
<<<<<<<<So the point I want to make here is, you've been saying that the idea
that the universe has been doubling in complexity every 2.3 years is
impossible because there aren't enough atoms. Now it might be
impossible -- I don't actually know -- but not for this reason. You
can't rule out exponential growth on the grounds that you don't have
enough atoms, because the number of possible *combinations* of states
of the atoms also grows exponentially. As long as some subset of
those states represents more "complexity" or "order" or whatever you
want to call it -- negentropy -- then it is possible for "complexity"
to double periodically (every, say, 2.3 years), as well.
You make it sound like a ridiculous idea. It's not ridiculous. It's a
perfectly sensible idea.>>>>>>>>>
Actually, I think you misunderstand my primary objection. The position that
there aren't enough atoms in the universe to posit such a doubling since the
Big Bang isn't one I made...it's one you made. I never brought up the atoms
argument (although I would say it doesn't hurt my position) because it's not so
much the concept of single exponential growth that I have a problem with;
it's the 2.3-year rate that doesn't make sense. You took Moore's law and
projected it way back in time (and yes, I extrapolated your claim all the way to
the Big Bang because that's what you implied). But do you seriously think ANY
form of complexity doubled at a (relatively) steady rate of 2.3 years (or
something close to that) between any, say, 500-year block of time in human
<<<<<<<So to me it looks like Moore's Law is just a continuaton of this
trend in exponential growth in complexity that goes all the way back
to the big bang.
And this seems to be what got me into a lot of trouble, because ever
since you've been attacking me relentlessly for asserting that
"complexity doubles every 2.3 years since the big bang".>>>>>>>
So yes, I think this is where the problem lies: I objected to your
extrapolation of Moore's Law based on your claimed observation of 2.3 years, but you
defended the concept of single-exponential growth instead of the problem with
the rate (not that I agree with the latter either, but...).
<<<<<<<<<<I guess what still has me most puzzled over this whole thing is why
you care so much about the question? I mean, I know you're afraid of
the idea of single-exponential growth demolishing the idea of
double-exponential growth, but why such a huge emotional investment
in the idea of double-exponential growth?>>>>>>>>
I'm afraid that the idea of single-exponential growth would demolish the
idea of double-exponential growth? Well, no. I'd have to have an emotional
investment in the idea of double-exponential growth for that to happen, and I
don't. I AM, however, curious to know if there is a flaw in Kurzweil's reasoning,
and thus your claim interests me. I can't know the validity of your claim
without extensive research (or at least expert consensus...which is what I have
to work with anyway, since I'm no expert myself), but if I can find fault
with any part of your claim, it implies inaccuracy with the foundation of the
claim...which is why I've been riding your ass on the 2.3 year doubling issue.
Quite frankly, I'd rather find out the correct answer than win the argument.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]